Airliner on fire in YYZ

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:18 pm

Yeah, I hear what you're saying about the scale of coverage snag. It's almost as if they were expecting the worst and since that was'nt the case, the story was no longer interesting enough to be given any importance. That's the media for you!

bizjet_mania · Post by **bizjet_mania** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:25 pm

no news like bad news

Kurwa · Post by **Kurwa** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:37 pm

Best one yet from Johnny whatever (Pax) on the relative distance to the ground from the emergency exit: "...this was not a Boeing, only an Airbus...so it was't very far to the ground..."

I couldn't resist...

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:38 pm

I think Sulako and wasn't me are on the right track. Plane being high due to being on the glide slope for the touch down at least 1000ft down the runway at what speed, we do not know. However on touch down there are reports of lightning and power loss therefore the heavy down pour and hydroplaning now comes into play, would anti skid not take care of that? Quite possibly the power loss would of taken that system out of the question. However I am not familiar with the systems of a 340 let alone any large get so I could be wrong.

medicineman · Post by **medicineman** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:42 pm

Truly a miracle....

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:45 pm

kurwa

bet that pax wouldn't say that from a 380

let's leave the analysis to the "experts" people have been so critical of over the last four pages and wait for FDR/CVR etc - depending on the account from pax (the landing was fast - yeah mate plenty of pilots have said before no-one knows how fast a landing a/c is going from a pax seat) to spotters on the 401 (I heard the engine rev) anything could have happened that 340.

At least no-one's said "if it ain't boeing" yet but it can surely be only a matter of time - in fact, if one particular individual on PPRuNe hasn't said it yet I shall be very surprised...

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:58 pm

Kurwa, maybe we should have Johnny jump to the ground from an Airbus, then from a Boeing and then have him tell us if there's a difference in how many pieces his legs shatter into!

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:05 pm

I don't think the plane was coming in too fast, if you listen to the archived atc at liveatc.com you can hear the controller slow down AF358 twice, then tell him, "I'll need your minumum speed now, as slow as you can go please." But after a crash there's always one or two jacka$$'s that say the plane was going too fast, too high, etc.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:05 pm

CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD

CYYZ 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD

CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164

Crash was apparently somewhere around 2001z and 2006z...not sure exactly.

Quite the change in wind.....

Blue Side Down · Post by **Blue Side Down** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:10 pm

+TSRA

First of all, I'm glad I don't have a TV... if reporters only thought more and spoke less, what a world this would be.

Sorry to go against the "showed great professionalism on the part of the crew" bit...

...but what were they thinking?! As it said: +TSRA 'Oh ya, well lets give it a go anyways, Jaques.'

Accident reports are published for a reason, no? I came across the info that on this day twenty years ago, an airliner attemped the same thing (landing in a TS) going into Dallas... they managed to kill 130 or so that time.

Glad everybody survived- luck was with them this day.

Pachanga · Post by **Pachanga** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:24 pm

Heavy TS in the report definitely implies that extreme caution should be exercised but does not necessarily suggest that you can not approach the airport. It is not uncommon to approach an airport that has reports such as this one and be able to circumnavigate around the cells and safely make an approach.

I am not disputing the fact that weather was a distinct issue in this case but lets not lower our regard for this particular crew that ended up in this situation. Several aircraft prior to the Air France made the decision to continue in and if it wasn't for the airport closure several more were ready and willing to continue afterwards as is evident in the ATC feed.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:50 pm

You all missed what really happened...

The Capt. was having his bottle(glass) of wine on landing, and.. Well. Drinking and flying..

BTD · Post by **BTD** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:13 pm

Remember crew also includes the FA's not just the pilots.

And we don't here about all the times that aircraft land safely with TS in the area.

A plane took off 20 years ago and crashed, one did today as well. Doesn't mean we shouldn't fly. Because in this case we know 100s-1000s do it everyday without problems. So it is not such a high risk. We need to know the success rate around TS before making comments like that.
If 100% fail its not such a good idea. If 0.0000000000000000000001% fail. It might not be such a large risk. We will never know though.

I only say this to illustrate a point. Things aren't always what they seem. But I agree whenever near TS caution is required and quite possibly a diversion to an alternate

I_Drive_Planes · Post by **I_Drive_Planes** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:26 pm

Now what I'm wondering is how the terrorists managed to control the weather to make the plane crash

Planes

The People's Pilot · Post by **The People's Pilot** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:47 pm

not only did these "experts" piss me off but these dumbass eyewitnesses as well...my absolute favourite was this woman on city/cp24:

"we were on the 401 stuck in traffic when we saw a huge bolt of lightning...30 seconds later we saw an airplane in the ditch and at that point realized the airplane was hit by lightning...there were streaks of fire along the runway all the way to where the aircraft stopped in the ravine."

uhh yea.

Youngback · Post by **Youngback** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:52 pm

I really don't see what the big deal here is. This was a landing everyone walked away from so it was obviously a good (not great) one. Who cares if the plane is now in a ditch.

Boss Hawg · Post by **Boss Hawg** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:09 pm

My favourite line of the day was the reporter on CTV......early on they still couldn't confirm whether the plane was taking off or landing, but this sleuth figured it out for us by saying "Airplanes always land into the wind. Since this airplane was going into the wind at the time of the crash it must have been landing, if it was taking off it would have been going the other way."

Ummm, yeah. Kinda makes you wonder how much other bs they feed you doesn't it?

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:04 pm

cyyz wrote:You all missed what really happened...

The Capt. was having his bottle(glass) of wine on landing, and.. Well. Drinking and flying..

Isn't there some CRM thing about no booze in the cockpit below 10,000 feet?

But seriously, if all survived, I say good landing.

-istp

Kurwa · Post by **Kurwa** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:26 pm

ah, istp, I believe you're getting confused with the 8 feet bottle to throttle rule...just wanted to straighten you out there...

...and yes a great landing...and what a finale! I don't think I can beat that.

Everyone lived...so we laugh a bit, but seriously? This is what we all train for...ground/fire/rescue crews alike...we'd all like to think that everyone lived because everyone did their jobs that they've trained to do...even Johnny whatshisname that was glad he was jumping out of an Airbus and not a Boeing...so it wasn't quite as high...

pilotbzh · Post by **pilotbzh** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:45 pm

was that 8ft, I allways used the 8inchs rule from bottle to trottle...

Kurwa · Post by **Kurwa** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:50 pm

From the plane or the throttles? Or was it the size of the bottle?...

dune · Post by **dune** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:17 am

Glad everyone is alright.

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 2:56 am

Edit...

I guess reading the first 5 posts or so would have kept me from looking stupid.

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:20 am

Chris wrote:CYYZ 022020Z 34024G33KT 3SM +TSRA FEW015 OVC040TCU 23/ RMK SF2TCU6 CB ASOCTD

CYYZ 022004Z CCA 34024G33KT 1 1/4SM +TSRA SCT015 OVC045TCU 23/ RMK RA2SF2TCU5 CB ASOCTD

CYYZ 022000Z 29011KT 4SM +TSRA BKN051TCU BKN140 23/22 A3002 RMK TCU6AC1 CB ASOCTD LTGCC VIS LWR SW-NW 2 SLP164

Crash was apparently somewhere around 2001z and 2006z...not sure exactly.

Quite the change in wind.....

Maybe they'll start using the 33's a bit more

Cool Rythms! · Post by **Cool Rythms!** » Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:48 am

I agree with Youngback's comment. There was no loss of life and that's enough to thank God for. An airplane is just a huge chunk of metal, it can be replaced. Your Mom or Dad or Brother or Sister or Girlfriend or Boyfriend or Wife or Husband can't be.

And yes, I strongly agree, that it was the combined efforts and professionalism of both the flight and cabin crews, as well as the emergency teams, which saved those passengers. They all did what they were trained to do.